Fill and Sign the In the Court of Appeals of the State of Mississippi No 95 Form

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI VS. THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B , DISSENTING: I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that the Commission has the authority to deny a course of treatment recommended by the treating physician. The majority relies on section 71-3-15(1) of the Mississippi Code to affirm the Commission's decision to deny treatment. That code section states in relevant part: Should the employer desire, he/she may have the employee examined by a physician other than of the employee's choosing for the purpose of evaluating temporary or permanent disability or medical treatment being rendered. Miss. Code Ann. 71-3-15(1) (Rev. 1995). The majority interprets this section as allowing the Commission the authority to deny treatment. By doing so, we have unnecessarily broade ned the scope of the statute. The relevant code section gives the employer the authority to require the claima nt to submit to an independent medical examination only to evaluate the extent of hi s or her disability, or to evaluate the medical treatment being rendered. This section does not a llow the Commission to deny recommended treatment where the Commission has the authority to suspend payment of compensation if the employee unreasonably refuses treatment. There is no reciprocal provisi on that allows the Commission to deny treatment that the claimant wants to submi t to pursuant to his/her doctor's recommendation. The statute does not grant the Commission such authority. Accordingly, the Commission stepped beyond the scope of its statutory authority when it in fact denied the specific treatment recommended by Dr. . It is for this reason that I must dissent from the majority opinion. AND , JOIN THIS SEPARATE OPINION.